God...Why?

[happyhindu]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

The truly intelligent one will be the one who knows eveything.

Remember Sage Uddalaka asking his son Shwetaketu "Do you know that which by knowing it one knows everything"

Is there anyone in this world who is "truly intelligent" ??

Except GOD perhaps, the all-knowing one, i can't think of mortals who are truly intelligent by that definition.

But i do accept the theory of multiple intelligence. Being knowledgeable about one thing and not-knowing other things does not make a man less or more intelligent. Each has his own set of abilties.

Intelligence cannot be judged. Nor can genetics predict it for sure (atleast not as yet). Everyone who carries the Y-chromosome of Albert Einstein , like his paternal cousins, or his X-Chr like his maternal cousins, did not show the same intelligence level as einstein.

Seers of the Rig Ved also wondered whether God exists or not; showing that they were not "all-knowing" ones either. Some seers confirmed God exists, some confirmed God does not exist, some say God is the self, etc. Each of those "confirmations" are based on how each felt.

Intelligence, is truly a very relative term. No one, no matter how spiritually advanced either, is infallible. Being all-knowing is humanly impossible, i suppose...

 

[renuka]

Dear RVR,

the actual shloka i have is quite long.
i manage to look up on line for you and got part of the shloka with translation.


The ancient text of Agastya Samhita describes the method of making electric battery, and that water can be split into oxygen and hydrogen.
"Sansthapya Mrinmaya Patre
Tamrapatram Susanskritam
Chhadyechhikhigriven Chardrarbhih
Kashthpamsubhih.
Dastaloshto Nidhatavyah
Pardachhaditastah
Sanyogajjayte Tejo
Mitravarunsangyitam"
"Place a well-cleaned copper plate in an earthenware vessel. Cover it first by copper sulfate and then by moist sawdust. After that, put a mercury-amalgamated zinc sheet on top of the sawdust to avoid polarization. The contact will produce an energy known by the twin name of Mitra-Varuna. Water will be split by this current into Pranavayu and Udanavayu. A chain of one hundred jars is said to give a very effective force.






adding some more info(article by Suresh Soni,Sages were scientist too)
Electrical Science
Rao Saheb Krishnaji Vajhe had passed the engineering exam in 1891 from Pune. While looking for scriptures related to science, he found a few pages of the Agastya Samhita with Damodar Tryambak Joshi of Ujjain. These belonged to around Shaka Samvat 1550. Later on, after reading the said description in the pages of the Samhita, Dr. M.C.Sahastrabuddhe, the Head of the Sanskrit Department in Nagpur felt that the description was very similar to that of Daniel Cell. So he gave it to P.P. Hole, the Professor of Engineering at Nagpur, with a request to investigate. Agastyas sources were as follows:

Sansthapya Mrinmaya Patre
Tamrapatram Susanskritam
Chhadyechhikhigriven Chardrarbhih
Kashthpamsubhih.
Dastaloshto Nidhatavyah
Pardachhaditastah
Sanyogajjayte Tejo
Mitravarunsangyitam.
(Agastya Samhita)

Take an earthen pot, place a copper sheet, and put the shikhigreeva in it. Then, smear it with wet sawdust, mercury and zinc. Then, if you join the wires, it will give rise to Mitravarunashakti.

When Mr. Hole an his friend started preparing the apparatus on the basis of the above description, they could understand all the things except shikhigreeva. On checking the Sanskrit dictionary, they understood that it meant the neck of a peacock. So, he and his friend went to Maharaj Bagh and asked the chief when a peacock would die in his zoo. This angered the gentleman. Then they told him that they needed its neck for an experiment. The gentleman asked them to give in an application. Later, when during a conversation, they narrated this to an Ayurveda expert, he burst out laughing and said that here it did not mean the neck of a peacock, but a substance of that colour, that is copper sulphate. This solved the problem. Thus, a cell was formed and measured with a digital multimeter. It had an open circuit voltage of 1.38 volts and short circuit current of 23 milli amperes.

The information that the experiment was successful was conveyed to Dr. M.C. Sahastryabuddhe. This cell was exhibited on August 7, 1990 before the scholars of the fourth general meeting at the Swadeshi Vigyan Sanshodhan Sanstha, Nagpur. It was then realised that the description was of the electric cell. They investigated as to what the context was and it was realised that Sage Agastya had said many things before this.

Anen Jalbhangosti Prano Daneshu
Vayushu
Evam Shatanam
Kumbhanamsanyogkaryakritsmritah.
(Agastya Samhita)

He says that if we use the power of 100 earthen pots on water, then water will change its form into life-giving oxygen and floating hydrogen.

 

[RVR]

Thanks Dr.Renuka

All the best

 

[RVR]

When you talk about God, it reminds of a actual happening in my economic class.

My economic lecturer said,

Land is the gift of God

Immediately a fellow student raised the question `What do you mean by God'?

The lecturer corrected his statement `Land is a gift of nature'

all the best

 

[happyhindu]

Shri RVR ji,

I dunno if Agastya Samhita forms a part of the Vaisheshika school. Looks probable it does.

But not only electricity, the Vaisheshika (atomist) school deals with matter, vaccum, light, time, etc (things that pertain to physics and can be applied in astrophysics today).

These are good introductions on the Vaisheshika thought - Basic Tenets of the Nyaya and Vaisheshika Schools of Indian Philosophy and Vaisheshika

Maybe you will really like this one: http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0702012

Vaisheshika school can be consdiered like a rationalists' school. It deals with the nature of substances and things based on pratyaksha and anumana as pramiti-vishayetva and abhideyatva.

It also deals with the soul but does not confirm if god exists (more like advaitha type perhaps). However, both theist and atheist schools have used the vaisheshika sutra to attest their own interpretations and explain their own ideologies.

Originally Vaisheshika sutra did not mention god at all. But later commentators added it to the sutra: http://www.thehindulife.com/vedic-knowledge/sutras-shastras.html

Regards.

 

[Raghy]

Sow.Sri.renukakarthikayan asked:-

"......Do you know that which by knowing it one knows everything"

Sow.Renukakarthikayan,

Yes. The answer is 'Google'. By knowing Google well, pretty much you know everything! eace:

Cheers!

 

[renuka]

Sow.Sri.renukakarthikayan asked:-

"......Do you know that which by knowing it one knows everything"

Sow.Renukakarthikayan,

Yes. The answer is 'Google'. By knowing Google well, pretty much you know everything! eace:

Cheers!

My Dearest Raghy,

I did not ask that question, It was Sage Uddalaka that asked his son ShwetaKetu.

Anyway nice one.

regards
renu

 

[amala]

Dear Renuji,

In Advaita it is said that if one knows/realise Brahman (it), then one knows everything. You said that something that existed cannot perish with regards to the "god gene" but you have extinction dont you? Isnt that perishing in a way?.

Also I'm not sure i get what "god gene" is. Is it like being afraid of the dark? I wouldn't have hought it was genes more learnt behaviour.

Dear Nara mama,

Thank you for the illuminating VSR lecture. It was really interesting although I couldn't really relate to phantom limbs, touchwood and hopefully will never ever have to. Also could you kindly not use the word heathen. I find it extremely disturbing. There was a time in the Christian lands, where pagans, all Eastern religions and polytheists were called heathens and unimaginable things done to them.

 

[Nara]

....kindly not use the word heathen. I find it extremely disturbingp

Dear Amala, you are indeed very gentle and will take your wish as my command.

Also I'm not sure i get what "god gene" is.

God gene is not established science, it is only a hypothesis. This NY Times article gives a very decent account even though, IMO, they have mischaracterized the so called "atheist's" preference.

The word "atheist" unfairly straight-jackets regular people as somebody opposite to those who are theists. This is upside down thinking. The fact is, we all are born as just humans. In the course of growing up, in a particular environment, we get pigeonholed into some religion and their god.

Those who don't want to subscribe to any god are just normal people, wanting to remain in the same uncontaminated state they were born into, that is all. People who want to take on a belief in higher power that intervenes in their daily lives can call themselves "theists", that is their right. But I like to think of myself as just a regular bloke, not this, that, or whatever.

Cheers!

 

[amala]

Dear Amala, you are indeed very gentle and will take your wish as my command.

Thank you.

God gene is not established science, it is only a hypothesis. This NY Times article gives a very decent account even though, IMO, they have mischaracterized the so called "atheist's" preference.

The word "atheist" unfairly straight-jackets regular people as somebody opposite to those who are theists. This is upside down thinking. The fact is, we all are born as just humans. In the course of growing up, in a particular environment, we get pigeonholed into some religion and their god.

Those who don't want to subscribe to any god are just normal people, wanting to remain in the same uncontaminated state they were born into, that is all. People who want to take on a belief in higher power that intervenes in their daily lives can call themselves "theists", that is their right. But I like to think of myself as just a regular bloke, not this, that, or whatever.

Cheers!

Even the article says believing in God is an evolved behaviour and therefore favoured by natural selection. So its obviously been and still is beneficial which is why its still around no? Guess it answers this thread of Why God. I vaguely remember reading some article before about people believing in God living longer or was it happier lives or recovering from illness faster than non believers.

I find it very strange that you find the word atheist "unfairly straight jacketing" people because I would have thought it is a far more "polite" word than heathen which has as bad a connotation as calling a black person the N word, for me anyway.

I take your point about not wanting to be labelled something just because of your disbelief. Perhaps for the longest time and still going strong most people are believers or religion/God so they choose to label minorities just like homosexuals get labelled this, that or whatever

 

[Nara]

Dear Amala,

... Even the article says believing in God is an evolved behaviour and therefore favoured by natural selection. So its obviously been and still is beneficial which is why its still around no?

It may have given a survival and procreative advantage at one time, but that does not mean it still does. As Renu noted, once a mutation becomes part of the genetic make up it does not simply go away, but it may recede back. Further, it must be noted that this theory talks only about proclivity to believe in god, not the actual existence of god.

.... I would have thought it is a far more "polite" word than heathen which has as bad a connotation

I used the H-word in jest, not seriously at all. I have no great problem with being called an Atheist, it is just that I prefer plain human being -- I do not think passing up on belief in god is an important part of who I am to deserve any labeling.

Cheers!

 

[renuka]

Dear Renuji,

In Advaita it is said that if one knows/realise Brahman (it), then one knows everything. You said that something that existed cannot perish with regards to the "god gene" but you have extinction dont you? Isnt that perishing in a way?.

Also I'm not sure i get what "god gene" is. Is it like being afraid of the dark? I wouldn't have hought it was genes more learnt behaviour.

Dear Nara mama,

Thank you for the illuminating VSR lecture. It was really interesting although I couldn't really relate to phantom limbs, touchwood and hopefully will never ever have to. Also could you kindly not use the word heathen. I find it extremely disturbing. There was a time in the Christian lands, where pagans, all Eastern religions and polytheists were called heathens and unimaginable things done to them.

Dear amala,

Even energy cannot be destroyed. It just changes form.
Extinction is only for the physical form.

When we die our physical body goes back to the basic 5 elements.The "physical body" has gone but it has become the 5 elements now.
The basic 5 elements we know have undergone a state called Panchikarana(grossification).
The basic 5 elements itself will go back to its non grossified state to what is commomly called 5 great elements.

During dissolution(Pralaya) even these 5 great elements will go back to its original source the Supreme Power.


Even in an inanimate object---form changes--for example recycling of biodegradable products---eventually even this will go back to the basic 5 elements.

For the True Self, there is never birth nor death.nor having once been, does the true self ever cease to be.
The true self is unborn, external,ever existing, undying and primeval.
The true self is not slain when the body is slain.

Na jaayate mriyate vaa kadaacin
naayam bhootvaa bhavita vaa na bhooyah
ajo nityah shashvato yam puraano
na hanyate hanyamaane shareere

(bhagavad geeta chapter 2 stanza 2)

 

[Dr.S.Ramanathan]

Dear Prof. Nara, Dr. Renukakartikayan and ms.Amla,
This Vedanta topic is too large and contentious and so I would not like to get into a serious discussion; but, I would like to make a limited small point.
"Heathen" is an avoidable vocabulary. "Atheist" is a straight jacket. I would really like to rejuvenate the word "Rationalists" to describe enlightened personnel like you, who would not like to accept a statement without adequate search and questioning. This has been the approach of the Renaissance period, when things prospered and bloomed. Only one request, even at the cost of repetition from elsewhere. Pl. remember that "ABSENCE OF PROOF IS NOT PROOF OF ABSENCE."
Regards and Respects,
Ramanathan.

 

[pannvalan]

Ramanathan,

I appreciate your last statement.

One cannot deny the existence of something which one has never attempted to see, feel etc.

From a pre-determined notion, if one starts, he will be moving within a circle. But, usually such person will blame the others outside the circle. For instance, a person behind bars will think all others are behind bars, not he.

Without exploring something, we cannot have conclusions. One cannot travel backwards from the destination to the starting point. And should not too.

God does not exist in vacuum. Because he is nirguna brahmam for the people in the ultimate stage of their journey towards Him, he is described as formless, genderless, free from any particular definition and beyond what our thoughts and words can understand or express, others are tempted to think that there cannot be 'one such
entity'.

For a person who does not know French even a wee bit, a common French word also will look meaningless. Those who have not heard of USA will imagine so many things about it or deny its existence.

God is under no compulsion to prove His existence, to human beings. For, we need Him, not He needs us.

 

[Nara]

.....Pl. remember that "ABSENCE OF PROOF IS NOT PROOF OF ABSENCE."

Dear Shri. Ramanathan, Greetings!

The above statement is not my position -- it is a strawman.

All I am saying is, the onus of proof is upon those who make claims. Just making a claim and demanding the negative be proved is not a serious position.

Also, Shri Pannvalan's analogies, including one about French words and the existence of USA, misses the point altogether. The meaning of French words and the existence of USA can be easily verified in numerous ways. However, until today, the existence of god has not been verified in any way at all, by anybody.

Let me state my position as clearly as I can.

In as much as negatives cannot be proved conclusively, human knowledge at this present time does not allow anyone to be more than an agnostic on the question of existence of a superior power that some may call god.

However, on the question of personal and interventionist god, who listens and answers prayers and cares about human affairs, one can pretty conclusively be an atheist as such a god concept is based on pure dogma and has repeatedly come out way way short.

Cheers!

 

[nachi naga]

All I am saying is, the onus of proof is upon those who make claims. Just making a claim and demanding the negative be proved is not a serious position.



Let me state my position as clearly as I can.

In as much as negatives cannot be proved conclusively, human knowledge at this present time does not allow anyone to be more than an agnostic on the question of existence of a superior power that some may call god.

However, on the question of personal and interventionist god, who listens and answers prayers and cares about human affairs, one can pretty conclusively be an atheist as such a god concept is based on pure dogma and has repeatedly come out way way short.

Cheers!

Dear Nara,

For a kindergarten student,to know about god,we start teaching him/her,the basics namely : your matha & pitha are your god.If,you accept that you have parents and thats how you were born,then sir,you have accepted god.Thank you !

nachi naga.

 

[anandb]

Actually this discussion will go on till the last human goes away from the face of earth. The truth is neither the theist can prove the existence of god nor the atheist can prove otherwise. For the theist, it is all about believing and faith. With that he looks for god in even the smallest things and find it. So for him nothing just happens by chance and there is a great cosmic energy planning it. For the atheist, even if Shri. Krishna appears before him in flesh he would think that it is some actor trying to deceive him or he is just hallucinating. For him, it is just science, science and nothing else and everything has to be validated in a laboratory not understanding that these experiments themselves are designed by humans who are imperfect.

The fact remains that the concept of religion and god has existed from time immemorial among all cultures, traditions and societies. One can fool some people some times but not all people all the time. Even now there are a lot of people fed up with religion and who call themselves belonging to no religion but still believing in a Supreme Power. So the concept of a God or Supreme Power is etched in the human consciousness. Let the atheists say man is attributing god to the inexplicable. As a believer I have no problems with that but I will counter it by saying explain the inexplicable first. Let all beliefs about religion attributed to dogma. I or probably my grandson after ten generations will wait for the scientist with his ugly looking spaceships sent in space, the big telescopes looking at the stars and the giant particle collider which has overshot its budget give some clues as to the Creation and the purpose of all of us in this Creation. Till then let me believe all this religious dogma as true and get on with my work.

It is actually amusing to see how the atheist brigade is hell bent on proving the non-existence of god and my only worry is these guys are thinking about god all the time that they are more believers than me. Now, because of that if god is going to be partial towards them then I am going to get very, very angry with god.:lol:

 

[happyhindu]

In Advaita it is said that if one knows/realise Brahman (it), then one knows everything. You said that something that existed cannot perish with regards to the "god gene" but you have extinction dont you? Isnt that perishing in a way?.

Also I'm not sure i get what "god gene" is. Is it like being afraid of the dark? I wouldn't have hought it was genes more learnt behaviour.

Amala,

Though this question was for Renu, am chipping in a bit. Renu's answer was from the religious POV. But since you have mentioned you don't get what god gene is, here are a few inputs:

1) It is believed that genes determine behavior.

2) God gene is a euphemism for a set of genes that are considered to make a man believe in the existence of god. Meaning, it is in the genes of a man to believe in god.

One similar example wud be the 'gay gene' or genes that result in homosexuality (its not the person's fault for being a homosexual).

3) One of the main genes in this god gene theory is a gene called vmat2: Vesicular monoamine transporter 2 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Vmat2 effect the release of a neurotransmitter called monoamine, and affects the mood of a person.

Some people say that the brain is not connected to consciousness. But that may not be true.

Our moods, behaviour, etc are considred to be a result of various chemical reactions that take place in the brain. The structure of the brain is also being studied as a product of genes.

Ofcourse, the majority of it all is not understood yet, but rapid strides have been made in the recent years due to various (brain) imaging equipment, various techniques, genetic or protein studies, etc.

When the brain is damaged, its hard to say if consciousness (as we know it) can even exist in a person. So people like Sri Nara have a point in not believing in certain things. But hey, ppl like me, may be hard-wired to believe in 'god'. And hinduism certainly has a place for every belief system - be it an atheist or a theist.

Genes are generally considered as distributed randomly in various populations. On example of 'god gene' wud be the presence of spirituality in so-called NB alwars and nayanmars.

There is even a wiki article on so-called saints of 'backward' castes. Goes to show how far some people can go with the tags of forward and backward.

Hinduism must be the only religion in the world today where spirituality is monopolized to this extent - and i wonder if there is a gene that determines such behaviour in some individuals

As far as extinction and perishability is concerned, its really hard to say if genes really perish...

We can only say that a lot of differentiation and transformation is involved.

Example: a gene, like say lcn5 or hox genes, may be effecting a different function in rats or drosophila and a different function in humans. When cell differentiation took place several millions of years ago, that is when, multicellular organisms began to be formed, genes got distributed in different organisms.

So, going by genetic studies, all living creatures we see today are evolved forms, forms that evolved in various ways over many geological periods, and evolution does not stop. You might a good idea by reading on orthalogous and paralogous genes.

Regards.

 

[arunshanker]

Dear Prof. Nara, Dr. Renukakartikayan and ms.Amla,
This Vedanta topic is too large and contentious and so I would not like to get into a serious discussion; but, I would like to make a limited small point.
"Heathen" is an avoidable vocabulary. "Atheist" is a straight jacket. I would really like to rejuvenate the word "Rationalists" to describe enlightened personnel like you, who would not like to accept a statement without adequate search and questioning. This has been the approach of the Renaissance period, when things prospered and bloomed. Only one request, even at the cost of repetition from elsewhere. Pl. remember that "ABSENCE OF PROOF IS NOT PROOF OF ABSENCE."
Regards and Respects,
Ramanathan.

Dear Dr. Ram
I think it also can be said that ABSENCE OF PROOF IS NOT PROOF OF PRESENCE. Hence here Agnostism comes into play where you can claim ignorance and which is bliss!
Or should we say Pantheism which is to say the view that the Universe (Nature) and God are identical. The idea that God is better understood as way of looking at natural law, existence, and the Universe , rather than as a transcendent and especially anthropomorphic entity

 

[sangom]

That Man is not all-powerful and that there is something more powerful than him should be obvious to most people including scientists. This power which is even today unknown to Man, may be called God. But the confusion starts when form, qualities etc., are assigned to that power. This habit can be traced back to the witch-doctors of the primitive tribal societies and this has continued through the millennia with so much more embellishments, variations, descriptions etc., so as to suit the priestly classes which invariably claimed itself to be authentic intermediaries between the ordinary unsullied human mind and the mysterious power, and made it their livelihhod. One can get a feel of these statements if one reads the "naasadeeya sUkta" of the Rigveda (10.129) and then see how the vedic priests (brahmins) constructed elaborate rituals like asvamedha, pasumedha, etc.

Mysticism in my view is nothing more than the outcome of a very acute or high level of auto-suggestion. In bhakti or even in mysticism a person does not go beyond his human body and mind. That is why many so-called ascetics take to intoxicants like charas, bhang etc., so that they can prolong their blissful mental state.

God is a mysterious power and life too is equally mysterious. Perhaps this similarity might have induced the authors of Upanishads to proclaim "tat tvam asi SvEtakEtO", "aham brahmAsmi", etc. The basic confusion is what came out in the form of the latter-day vedantic schools like advaita, dvaita, visishtadvaita etc., each of which is held most sacrosanct by its adherents and followed without questioning.

Yet another problem with religious thinking is that the God should be the creator. Advaita has moved away from this to some extent but it has got entangled into knots because of its 'tat tvam asi' adherence. So much so that ultimately Nirguna Brahman is attainable/realisable, according to advaita, even during life (Jeevan mukta) but "maya" becomes "anirvachaneeya"-inexplicable!

What if the nirguna brahman is all-pervading including a life force field throughout the universe, just as gravitation, with individual "life" manifesting wherever conditions are favourable for it to so manifest? I feel we should start thinking in such terms and reformulate our philosophies, if required. Here the nirguna brahman will still permeate life itself as also the body but the living entity will not be able to realise, experience that nirguns brahman. Perhaps this may be the truth which the naasadeeya sUkta left unanswered.

 

[nachi naga]

sagunam brahman is perceptible and realisable and live enlightened in a lifetime.nirgunam brahman is beyond perception & non-realisable akin to infinity.that which is infinite cannot be made finite,even in turiyam consciousness,imho.

 

[sangom]

To the Administrators,

My browser does not provide the option of quoting message in reply. I have Firefox 3.0.10. How can I get over this difficulty? Please advise.

 

[pannvalan]

I am also facing server problem, now and then.

 

[nachi naga]

To the Administrators,

My browser does not provide the option of quoting message in reply. I have Firefox 3.0.10. How can I get over this difficulty? Please advise.

- message -

ie
shud allow you to reply in any browser,if i have understood your query.square brackets close square brackets then use forward slash after square bracket and close square bracket

 

[nachi naga]

I am also facing server problem, now and then.

pannvalan

server problem maybe in your network,mine works well,so website is functioning well.